So "completion" means "Final turn for all players is finished" in your opinion?
FrankJones wrote: ↑16 December 2025, 09:26
2) Yes, we have established that values are not universal. So, the best we can do is go by what is generally considered appropriate, partly based on what typically is done or not done. Conceding near the end of the game is done rarely enough that we can infer an implicit understanding that such a behavior is not generally considered appropriate.
If this is a rare occurrence, then I don't know why this is even an issue that people are bringing up.
FrankJones wrote: ↑16 December 2025, 09:26
4) I am not comfortable with the way you use words such as "coercion" and "force". Having a set of rules on a board game site is neither coercive nor a use of force. Those are very strong words with a connotation of violence or the threat of violence, or the act of or threat of withholding crucial or vital necessities to a person.
Rules in a board game are different than rules imposed outside of the context of the game. For example, a time limit is a part of the mechanics of the game. Forbidding obscene language has no bearing on the mechanics of the game. So how do we impose out-of-context rules onto a game? By having separate, usually harsher penalties than violating the rules of the game. To illustrate my point, I'm not sure if you watch American football or not, but if a defensive back holds onto a receiver to prevent them from making a catch, that would be defensive pass interference and 15 yard penalty. That's violating the rules of the game. However, if you flip the bird towards an opposing player, that will incur an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and possible ejection from the game along with fines from the league. Flipping the bird at someone has no effect on the mechanisms of the sport, it is a social rule being enforced. In order to do that, the penalty must be greater than that of the rules of the game. What that penalty should be is what is debatable. For example, I think most people would agree that nulling that player's contract would be too harsh of a penalty.
Bringing it back to this context, I think that disabling the concede button for all games regardless of how much the game is completed is too draconian of a rule. I've played games where I was losing and as long as the game was quick, I'd just get it over with. But I've played against people who would take ages just to do their turn. A game of Wingspan, which typically last 20 minutes, can go over an hour if someone takes so much time on their turns. If I'm losing to who someone who is filibustering their time, why
must I continue playing with that person without incurring a significant penalty that can affect my ability to play more games on the platform? I receive a loss, a large karma penalty and possible red-thumbing or reporting by that person. And I don't think saying "Too bad" for a seemingly rare occurrence is worth doing that for the whole site. Maybe the communities around the individual games can decide that. But I don't think it's right as a site-wide rule.
FrankJones wrote: ↑16 December 2025, 09:26
6) The "jump" you refer to is what I call "making an inference". Sometimes in life we make inferences based on what people say and do, and how they say it or go about doing it. Inferring no ill-intent or annoyance is just as much of a "jump" or inference as it is to infer such things. But one of them has little basis for which to make the inference. Usually, the most likely and obvious inference is the correct one.
But the inference itself isn't evidence, right? It's what people say or do, I agree. But how can we determine that on an online platform where there is no visual expression of how people say and do those things? For example, if I said "See you later." on an online platform, you'd have no idea if I was being kind or rude to you. I'd guess you'd assume I'm meaning well because, without other evidence, you couldn't imagine that someone could be rude to you saying that. That's why I find the act of conceding itself to not be sufficient evidence to determine that it was meant as a rude gesture.
FrankJones wrote: ↑16 December 2025, 09:26
7) You're not "wrong" or "a fool", but I do believe you would be ignoring the most obvious and likely explanation. In the two examples I can recall, there was obvious spite or annoyance. In one case, the player explicitly said annoyed or spiteful things and seems like a genuinely rude and unsportsmanlike person. In the other instance, the player allowed me to play out of final sequence in Terraforming Mars, as is customary, indicating that time was not a concern. And then, as I have stated many times but you don't seem to be grasping it, that player conceded literally as I was about to make my final move, which was one more click than that player would have needed to let the game end naturally, because that player had passed in a game in which after passing, there was literally no possible move or action that player could take at that point.
Yeah, nik later made mention that your opponent conceded as you were playing out your final turn. I finally understand what you meant. In that context, I agree that I perceive that to be a rude and spiteful act. At that point, just let it play out. If they conceded on their turn, then I don't think it's that big of a deal.
FrankJones wrote: ↑16 December 2025, 09:26
So, out of 1600-ish games I have played, this seemingly ill-mannered behavior has occurred twice, and both times there was obvious ill-mannered intent or stated annoyance and bad sportsmanship.
And yet you think I am making a "jump" when I state that such behavior is atypically, generally not considered appropriate, and likely ill-mannered?
In the specific two cases you cited where someone said explicitly rude things and where an opponent rejected you from playing out your final turn when they could have conceded on their turn, I'm in agreement with you that can be considered inappropriate.